As part of the story, I interviewed Peter Gammons of the MLB Network and formerly ESPN and the Boston Globe, one of the most accomplished and longest tenured members of the Baseball Writers Association of America. Longtime readers will know that it’s rare to read Q&As here with other media members, but in this case, the writers are a huge part of the story as their vote will be announced on Wednesday.

(By the way, I use the third person “they” as I have only three of the required 10 years of BBWAA membership needed to attain a Hall of Fame vote.)

Here is the interview with Gammons, which I really enjoyed and hope you do too even though the answers don’t always exactly match the questions, prompting perhaps some shoddy follow-up work on my part, but I hope we got most of it covered. It’s edited only for length and almost exclusively for length of originally rambling questions.

• • •

Q: Do Bagwell’s numbers stand as Hall of Fame-worthy?

A: I think he’s a no-brainer. Whether you want to use one of the more obtuse statistics and put him in the top four offensive first baseman of all-time or put him in the top 30 hitters of all-time, I don’t think there’s any doubt that he goes in.

I think that his is a fascinating case because there are going to be cases where we’re not sure, you know, he didn’t have 500 home runs. Well, Jim Rice hit 378 home runs and got in. Jim Rice simply wasn’t the hitter that Bagwell was, or the defender or baserunner.

I think this has touched off such a furor because of the whole steroid issue. Honestly, I’m flabbergasted by it because I just don’t understand how all of a sudden you look back and say ‘I think I can tell by looking at it.’

I’m looking in my office here at his baseball card from when he played in the Cape Cod League. And it’s not like he went from 130 pounds to 260 or something.

Q: Do you expect him to be elected this year?

A: I don’t think he will. I actually think this could end up being a very important case because there will be others like it that come up.

Q: Do you think there is still some element of first-ballot protectionism, voters saying that you have to be a top-five player of all-time to go on the first ballot?

A: I think there is. I’ve never quite understood it because I try to look at a guy and say ‘is he a Hall-of-Famer or isn’t he.’ Now, there are times when I have changed my mind and decided that I would vote for somebody. Bert Blyleven is a good example. He didn’t strike me the first couple of times, and I had people send me material on it and send their arguments, and the more I studied, yes, he definitely belongs there.

But yes, I think there is a some of that ‘what is a first-ballot Hall of Famer.” Now there’s nothing on that ballot that you get in the mail every year that says a first-ballot Hall of Famer should be different than a second-ballot Hall of Famer.

…

I think there’s a great line, and I don’t know who wrote it, but someone wrote that they’d much rather have 100 people who did do steroids go in than have one person kept out because of the false (accusations). And I completely agree with that.

(Transcribers note: It was probably this piece from Joe Posnanski of Sports Illustrated.)

Q: Do you think that the next few years with some of the names coming up that it might get harder to stand out on a ballot?

A: Pitchers will come up eventually with Maddux and Glavine and Smoltz and guys like that. But when Bonds, Clemens and a few others come up, if Bagwell isn’t in by then — and I do think he’ll make it next year — if he isn’t in by then, what you’ll see is people saying ‘oh my goodness, we’ve done Bagwell a disservice.’

Q: In your mind as a voter, what has the drug issue done to the process?

A: It’s made it extremely difficult because how do you draw a line? That word ‘cheater’ I find is awfully easy to throw out there. But what is a cheater? Is it Leo Durocher and the Giants in ’51 putting a camera in center field, which may or may not have allowed Bobby Thompson to hit that home run? Is it Gaylord Perry throwing a spitter. I don’t know.

What it’s done is that it’s really fractured the Writers Association and the voting public. But I think this whole Bagwell thing really brings it to light just because he was a guy that people didn’t really talk about. Then all of a sudden you look back at his career and ‘look at his arms.’

That was a great interview on ESPN.com when he was talking about how much he lifted. That can happen. I saw Carlton Fisk get huge. We don’t know anything for sure. But I would bet my life on him being clean, and I also saw how much smaller he got when he stopped lifting just as Bagwell got a lot smaller when the arthritis in his shoulder got so bad.

• • •

We’ll have more on Bagwell throughout the week including other views and a discussion on how much clutch hitting and the postseason should play into a hitter’s candidacy, specifically as it relates to Bagwell.

“Those bigmouths couldn’t care less about anything going on outside their neighborhoods” This same statement could be said about most of the texans that I know except expand the neighborhood to state at it would be perect!

Nothing cracks me up more than when these morons claim that Bagwell wasn’t clutch or never did anything in the playoffs…. its just dumb to say that. For one, the first time the Stros were in the playoffs vs. the Braves they were overmatched against those great ATL teams and Bagwell was pitched around the whole series. In ’98, the Stros’s best team… the Padres were meant to be, and NO ONE hit. In ’04, when Bagwell was still healthy – he was great in the playoffs vs. the Braves then the Cardinals. Does anyone remeber it was Bagwell’s 2 out RBI in the 9th that sent Game 6 of the NLCS into extra inings. Playoff at-bats are just snap shots – not bodies of work.

My favorite story that typifies Bagwell and all the Bagwell haters was in 02 or 03. The Cubs were good, and had Sosa still in his prime, and the Stros were good too. MMPark was sold out. Sosa homers early to put the Cubs up, Bagwell homers to tie it. Sosa homers again in the middle innings to give the Cubs another lead, and Bagwell hits a 2 or 3 run shot to RCF to put the Stros up in the 7th. The Cubs score a couple late to take the lead late, then in the 9th, Bagwell comes up with runners on. Bagwell crushes a ball right at the SS, and the Cubs turn two to end the game. Bagwell is getting roasted on the radio after the game for not being clutch, and he really did everything and more you could ever want in that game from a guy in the middle of the order… oh well, typical stupid baseball people I guess.

It’s understandable that people are suspicious of players from the steroid era…but sometimes I think some of the people who assassinate Bagwell’s character or denigrate his career never watched him play. Frankly, I miss having him around the game. His quotes every spring training (“I Stink”) were like an annual rite.

As there is no evidence, not even any rumors other than media (and fan blogger) innuendo, that Bagwell used PED’s, I think it’s best to go with the “innocent until proven guilty” approach. And if you’re against that, well, you’re against America…

Ridiculous…1st ballot ……Peter Gammons need to be put in a home for that statement. NO PLAYER should be put in the Hall of Fame during the “Roid years”. Just like Pete Rose doesn’t belong in the hall….not for gambling but because he was juiced on “black mollies”….for you children out there, that is “speed”…why do you think they called him “Charlie Hustle”.

On top of that Bagwell was the least clutch hitter ever…..Led the league “solo shots” for home runs. How many players hit 30 homeruns with less than 100 rbi’s a year….not many….he’s a joke….his stats in the minors were a joke and he gets to the majors and a year later his arms look like POPEYE’S….what a joke.

“No doubt Bagwell juiced. I was saying this before his body broke down. The extra facial hair was an effort to conceal his protruding jaw line (a tell tale sign of use)”. Posted by: LaTavious McWelfare Jackson ~ Although there were plenty of players that did (which helps me understand your skepticism) I was a personal trainer at the gym where Bagwell trained with his personal trainer (a good friend of mine). I can honestly tell you that Bagwell did not juice. He approached his training regimen much like he approached the game…with an incredible amount of effort and a high level of discipline. Jeff was strong, but he was not “juice” strong (and yes, I would know the difference). About the facial hair thing…it was a joke/dare that he and Biggio had planned…which was to both go to spring training with ZZ Top beards…only Biggio chickened out…In my mind, it’s really a shame that the bad apples appear to have tainted the whole bunch.

“…Perhaps, as dozens upon dozens of his teammates turned to steroids and HGH throughout the 1990s and early 2000s (Reality: No two teams in baseball had more PED connections than the Texas Rangers and the Houston Astros)…”.

Perlman could give a&*#$@% about what I say, but still… To the best of my knowledge, Houston (from Bagwells primary playing days) didn’t have much of a connection with steroids past Cammi. I certainly don’t believe there was even remotely the PED usage there was with the Bash Brothers in Oakland (who he fails to mention).

It is wholly irresponsible reporting like this which drives me absolutely crazy, yet this unsubstantiated comment (to the best of my knowledge) goes completely unchallenged. I would ask (or beg, bribe, plead, whatever) you to call Pearlman out for it, but I really can’t imagine that you’d let such a statement about Houston go unchallenged, so I look forward to reading what you have to write about it (or conversely, telling me why I am wrong and Pearlman is correct).

Well the psychics are certainly out today. Maybe some of your abilities are better served on jury duty. Unless you were in the room with him when he was allegedly shooting up or sold steroids to him, how can you say “I know?”

No doubt Bagwell juiced. I was saying this before his body broke down. The extra facial hair was an effort to conceal his protruding jaw line (a tell tale sign of use). With what we know about Caminiti’s past usage, there’s no doubt in my mind that every memeber of that early 90′s triumvirate juiced.

Listened to an interesting radio segment here in Chicago reviewing hof candidate list. One commentator is a hof voter. Both hosts immediately shot down Bagwell as hof candidate and it had nothing to do with steroids. To summarize, they said he was good for a long time but not sustainably great over a period of time.